Forced birth controll?

[trivista]

Government for first question. As to how, maybe give a chemical birth control and then periodically test the blood for it. If not found, fine them or some such thing.

(The above is just an example which I in no way support).

You really really need to read that book you talk so much about.

 

[tammym1972]

ahhh..forced sterlilization..so Nazi Germany.

 

[horuhe00]

I completely disagree with forced birth control, or forced sterilization. It is morally wrong no matter what the reasons is. I also consider it to be a major violation of one's basic human rights.

How about our future generation's basic human rights? It's not all just "me, me, me". We must also think of future generations. That's sustainable development.

 

[cantata]

How about our future generation's basic human rights? It's not all just "me, me, me". We must also think of future generations. That's sustainable development.

Can't think about your future children if you're not allowed to have any, can you? This is stupid. We don't have a population problem. We have a resource distribution problem.

Anyway, as someone else asked, what if you have your two kids and they die? No more babies? What if you conceive quadruplets?

 

[horuhe00]

Can't think about your future children if you're not allowed to have any, can you? This is stupid. We don't have a population problem. We have a resource distribution problem.

Anyway, as someone else asked, what if you have your two kids and they die? No more babies? What if you conceive quadruplets?

Of course, you changed all I have said...

You get TWO births. Read the: TWO. That means that you, in fact, ARE allowed to have children.

We don't have a population problem like we have an infinite amount of iron in the Earth and fresh water abounds in the oceans. We also have a resource distribution problem.

If you have your two kids and they tragically die, well... Congratulations, you beat the odds! Yes, yes, I know. I'm such a heartless _________. The reason for steralizing after having 2 kids is presicely to not continue having kids, no matter what. The goal is to lower the population. By having 2 kids, if no one died prematurely, the population would remain the same. Since we all know accidents happen and people kill themselves, by being limited to 2 children per woman, the population will decline slowly.

If you get more than twins, well... Congratulations, you beat the odds as well.

 

[cantata]

Of course, you changed all I have said...

You get TWO births. Read the: TWO. That means that you, in fact, ARE allowed to have children.

Mm, sucks for you if they die and you've already been sterilised, though, doesn't it?

We don't have a population problem like we have an infinite amount of iron in the Earth and fresh water abounds in the oceans. We also have a resource distribution problem.

Mm, right.

Precisely what problems do you think are caused by overpopulation in the West?

If you have your two kids and they tragically die, well... Congratulations, you beat the odds! Yes, yes, I know. I'm such a heartless _________. The reason for steralizing after having 2 kids is presicely to not continue having kids, no matter what. The goal is to lower the population. By having 2 kids, if no one died prematurely, the population would remain the same. Since we all know accidents happen and people kill themselves, by being limited to 2 children per woman, the population will decline slowly.

If you get more than twins, well... Congratulations, you beat the odds as well.

Perhaps the improvement of birth control would be a better solution than forcing life-threatening surgery on women.

 

[horuhe00]

Mm, sucks for you if they die and you've already been sterilised, though, doesn't it?

Definately.

Mm, right.

Precisely what problems do you think are caused by overpopulation in the West?

A thing about overpopulation in the Earth is that, no matter where you are, it has an impact on the rest of the world. An example: China has an overpopulation problem. For the past 15 years, they have been heavily investing in infrastructure. That means steel, concrete, and many other resources that the rest of the world also uses. One of the main reasons for the scarcety of steel in the world is that a lot of it has gone directly to China. That means that the price in steel has more than doubled for all of us.
Also, overpopulation means a lot more food is needed. Sea life is being overfished and that is not sustainable. Every year, it's harder and harder to fill the nets like 30 years ago. That causes an imbalance in the oceans that not only causes a negative effect on the target fish, but all the animals. We're messing with the food chain.
The arable land can't keep up with world demand. This causes food prices to go higher. It causes people to cut down forests to gain more farm land. Brazil has been suffering so much that it's not even funny the effects it will have on our children. Over half of the wood that comes from Brazil for our furniture (which we need more of since we keep expanding) is illegaly cut down.
And on and on and on and on....

We can't see our own respective countries like solitary islands. We are all interconnected and everything affects us, directly or indirectly.

Perhaps the improvement of birth control would be a better solution than forcing life-threatening surgery on women.

Birth control only works when people use it. All surgery is life threatening. Does that mean we'll close down all the operating rooms?

 

[cantata]

All surgery is life threatening. Does that mean we'll close down all the operating rooms?

No; it just means we don't make people legally obliged to have surgery, especially when it isn't required for their health.

 

[horuhe00]

No; it just means we don't make people legally obliged to have surgery, especially when it isn't required for their health.

It's what I'm proposing, not what is being done.

How about vaccines? Kids are obligated to have them in order to get into schools. Those can be dangerous too.

 

[cantata]

It's what I'm proposing, not what is being done.

How about vaccines? Kids are obligated to have them in order to get into schools. Those can be dangerous too.

Vaccines do not qualify as surgical procedures.

 

[horuhe00]

Vaccines do not qualify as surgical procedures.

They can still cause harm.

 

[cantata]

They can still cause harm.

Of course. But firstly, they are considerably less risky than surgery; secondly, children are not absolutely legally required to receive them (their parents could choose home schooling rather than vaccination if they really wanted to); thirdly, they also happen to be for the medical benefit of the child; and fourthly, the vaccination rule is non-discriminatory: every child, male or female, who wishes to attend school must receive the vaccination. In addition, I am not sure that in my country children are legally required to be vaccinated before they go to school, although I may be mistaken about this.

You are proposing a system whereby the members of a particular group of people - women who have given birth to two babies - are forced to undergo a major and risky surgical procedure which is of no medical benefit to themselves. It is a totally different situation.

 

[horuhe00]

Of course. But firstly, they are considerably less risky than surgery; secondly, children are not absolutely legally required to receive them (their parents could choose home schooling rather than vaccination if they really wanted to); thirdly, they also happen to be for the medical benefit of the child; and fourthly, the vaccination rule is non-discriminatory: every child, male or female, who wishes to attend school must receive the vaccination. In addition, I am not sure that in my country children are legally required to be vaccinated before they go to school, although I may be mistaken about this.

Here, I think children are obligated to have them. And even if they don't, all schools, nurseries, day cares, etc. require them. So yeah, maybe you don't give them to your kids... But you can't get them out of your house either.
I'm not discriminating either. All females that have given birth twice. No loopholes. If you want it to be, all males that have fathered twice shall be steralized as well. Happy now?

You are proposing a system whereby the members of a particular group of people - women who have given birth to two babies - are forced to undergo a major and risky surgical procedure which is of no medical benefit to themselves. It is a totally different situation.

It is not a major operation. It is no more risky than driving to and from work every day. They benefit indirectly, not directly. They can concentrate on their one or two children, and not have to divide resources on a litter of kids. Universities are very expensive. Also, supplies won't have the same demand compared to everyone having as many kids as they want. Remember, this is for the good of the many, not for the selfish wishes of the one couple.

 

[cantata]

Here, I think children are obligated to have them.

Technically, parents are obliged to have their children vaccinated. Children are not obliged to do anything.

And even if they don't, all schools, nurseries, day cares, etc. require them. So yeah, maybe you don't give them to your kids... But you can't get them out of your house either.

*shrugs* It's still pretty different from threatening someone with prison if they don't undergo a life-threatening operation.

I'm not discriminating either. All females that have given birth twice. No loopholes. If you want it to be, all males that have fathered twice shall be steralized as well. Happy now?

That's certainly fairer. But it would still be worse for women, because the procedure is much riskier than sterilisation for men.

It is not a major operation. It is no more risky than driving to and from work every day. They benefit indirectly, not directly. They can concentrate on their one or two children, and not have to divide resources on a litter of kids. Universities are very expensive. Also, supplies won't have the same demand compared to everyone having as many kids as they want. Remember, this is for the good of the many, not for the selfish wishes of the one couple.

Did you know that the kind of hysterectomy you're recommending has a 1-in-200 chance of failing to work? That's quite a lot of women who can still get pregnant after being sterilized.

It's also considerably more invasive, and hence riskier, than vasectomy. And the point is that forcing someone to do something life-threatening, when they haven't done anything wrong, is much worse than them choosing to do something dangerous.

I would not want to live somewhere where people were treated like that.

 

[AJ29]

I haven't read the whole debate, so I apologise if I say something that has already been mentioned.

I don't think birth control should be forced on the general population.

I do, however, believe that in some instances it would be beneficial.

I taught a young girl several years ago. She was 10 years old at the time. She didn't speak. She had a severe intellectual disability. She had little "support" from family (I have no idea where her parents were - she was in the custody of her elderly grandmother who had little influence or respect in her community). She often spent her spare time around by her older male cousins. There were some other cultural issues as well.

There was discussion at the time of "what happens when she becomes sexually mature?" We had heard rumours that she was victimised by older males in the community, but we had no definite proof (difficult to obtain from someone who doesn't speak). We suspected that her refusal to speak was a reaction to trauma (abuse), but again, culturally, it wasn't something that was discussed or admitted to. (We knew she COULD speak - occasionally when she was really angry or antagonised by other students, she would swear quite clearly).

I seriously hope that she was put on birth control of some sort (perhaps the implant that doesn't need daily maintenance??). She was not capable of making decisions regarding having children, and we were unsure if she would be able to protect herself against situations (such as gang rape - which was a very real risk) where pregnancy might have resulted. Birth control would have been, in my opinion, a relatively simple "enforcement" that would have aided in her own protection (although obviously would not have prevented potential STDs or futher psychological trauma).

I don't believe forced birth control should be an "en mass" decision, but I do believe that there are exceptional cases (such as the one I mentioned), where it should most certainly be considered by caregivers, because some individuals are simply not able to make informed decisions.

 

[cantata]

I don't believe forced birth control should be an "en mass" decision, but I do believe that there are exceptional cases (such as the one I mentioned), where it should most certainly be considered by caregivers, because some individuals are simply not able to make informed decisions.

That's perfectly reasonable. If people sexually mature but are unable to make informed choices about their fertility, it seems reasonable to take measures to prevent pregnancy. It also seems reasonable to choose a method of preventing pregnancy which is not irreversible (such as the injection or an IUD).

Of course, that's a far cry from legally sanctioning the permanent sterilisation of either people with genetic diseases (which do not render them incapable of informed consent) or people who have had more than a certain number of children, or from legally requiring a mentally capable person to use birth control.

 

[horuhe00]

There's another way to not make it a requirement.

How about removing all monetary aid to a person who does not get steralized after the 2nd child? Adding economic sanctions to that person for causing the government to have to spend more on healthcare and education.

 

[cantata]

There's another way to not make it a requirement.

How about removing all monetary aid to a person who does not get steralized after the 2nd child? Adding economic sanctions to that person for causing the government to have to spend more on healthcare and education.

Ah, excellent - punish children for parents' "misdeeds", you say?

 

[horuhe00]

Ah, excellent - punish children for parents' "misdeeds", you say?

No. I say remove the economic aid given to low income families and make other things harder or more expensive. How it is right now, the more kids you crank out, the more money the government gives you if you are low income. It could be done two ways: (1) remove the aid when you have 2 kids and haven't been steralized. (2) remove the aid when you have your third birth.